The Keystone XL pipeline, which is proposed to run from Alberta in Canada to Texas, would not only put vast areas in the West in danger of oil spills, it would also harm coastal states by accelerating fuel exploitation and global warming.

The University of Maryland has found that Maryland is among the states most vulnerable to rising sea levels from climate change. While the U.S. Navy is taking the pragmatic approach and is examining the risk from rising sea levels to its installations across the globe, many in Congress would like to pretend that climate change can be talked away with rhetoric borrowed from their fossil fuel industry donors.

The proposed Keystone XL pipeline from Alberta has particularly strong lobbyist backing, so it isn't surprising that many politicians fail to mention how the consumption of dirty tar sands oil poses a risk to our climate, welfare and national security.

The congressional proponents of the pipeline claim that enough assessments have been conducted to predict the environmental impact of the pipeline. In a way, they are right: For more than 20 years, assessments of climate science have shown the risks from fossil fuel consumption.

To the president's credit, he has indicated that he might have to reject the pipeline if forced by Congress to make a swift decision. Let us hope that the commander in chief remains true to his word.

Tuesday evening's Senate vote to approve the Keystone XL pipeline may have come up one vote shy of the necessary 60-vote margin, but it's surely not the last we've heard of the project. Republicans have become so enamored of TransCanada's vision of a 1,200-mile link from Canadian tar sands through...

It makes no sense to invest billions of dollars in a dead-end technology like the Keystone XL pipeline, which will be obsolete and of ever-declining value over the next dozen years as we burn up yet more of our dwindling fossil fuel reserves ("Keystone comes up dry," Nov. 19).

Regarding Paul Romney's recent letter to the editor about the Keystone XL pipeline, Keystone is being built to connect crude oil producers in Canada and the Bakken region directly with refineries in the Gulf Coast ("Keystone veto was in U.S. interest," March 1).

Canada has a shale oil supply that could have reduced U.S. reliance of oil imports from the Middle East, provided thousands of American jobs and ultimately lowered the price of gasoline for American citizens. But President Barack Obama has held the project hostage. Not the House of Representatives...

Whether you are for or against the Keystone XL pipeline, The Sun's recent article revealed what $1 dollar spent on infrastructure can return to the economy ("Nebraska Court OKs route for Keystone pipeline," Jan. 10).

The permitting and construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline has become a controversial political issue, and its passage is the top priority of the Republican leadership in the Congress ("The Republican agenda," Jan. 5).